1

Early Childhood Development Conditional Grant Monitoring System

Khulisa Management Services

Jennifer Bisgard Tender EDO 222

Adapted from 13 April 2004; Presented 14 August 2014

2

Provincial Implementation: Overview

Conditional Grant:Selected sites (target 4500);Administered financial support in the form

of subsidies / practitioner salaries; Disbursed resource kits; Created advocacy; andSupported training practitioners.

3

Introduction: Background

This report is a snapshot

of implementation,not impact.

2002 2003 2004 2010

Provincial Grant Payments

Advocacy Campaign

Resource Kits

Monitoring & Support System Training &

Training of Management Structures

Khulisa Monitoring of the Conditional Grant Implementation

Cur

rent

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

Gra

de R

Com

puls

ory

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

Gra

de R

Continuing Benefits / Maintenance

Main Implementation

Preparation for Implementation

RTO Training

Implementation of Conditional Grant Components & Khulisa Monitoring

4

Introduction

Training of Provincial and District Officials: Were provincial and district officials satisfied and did they show relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme?Implementation of Monitoring and Support Systems: How well has the monitoring and support systems been implemented?Provincial Conditional Grant Implementation: How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant?

5

IntroductionConditional Grant Implementation: How has the conditional grant affected the sites?Advocacy Campaign Issues: What level of awareness do the officials involved in this project have of the advocacy campaign?Broader ECD issues: What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues: Social Development Registration? Grade R Learner Admission Policy? Social Grant Disbursement? Primary School Nutrition Programme? South African Council of Educators (SACE) Registration?

6

Caveat

This is a monitoring not a research project from June 2003 to March 2004 Monitoring visits cannot be generalised to a

province or to a district Monitoring visits may have been

(unconsciously or consciously) biased Once most sites are monitored twice a year

then the results will be more representative

7

Reliability of Results

Very reliable but slight deviations in the interpretation of findings occur. Officials sometimes feel “sorry” and inflate scoring so as “not to penalise” sites. Despite four quality control measures, inaccuracies still occur.

8

Training of Provincial & District Officials

Were provincial and district officials satisfied with the training and did they show

relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme?

9

Provincial Outcomes

To be able to analyse and write up the data into quarterly monitoring reports

To set up conditional grants monitoring and support systems

To be able to hold staff accountable for the monitoring and support process

To ensure use of monitoring and support system on all Grade R sites

To be able to train staff in the monitoring and support process

Unit 1 – General Overview of the Monitoring and Support System

Unit 2 – Monitoring and Evaluation

Unit 3 - Support

Unit 4 – Quality Control

Unit 5 – Logistical Planning

Unit 6 – Training Officials in your Province

Data Analysis and Report writing workshops

10

Training of Officials: District Outcomes

Unit 1 – General Overview of the Monitoring and Support System

Unit 2 – Monitoring and Evaluation

Unit 3 - Support

Unit 4 – Quality Control

Unit 5 – Logistical Planning

To be able to plan and conduct monitoring of conditional grants and other Grade R sites

To be able to provide support which results in the performance of sites improving

To be able to quality assure monitoring data

11

Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model

Summary of the 4-level Strategic Training Model.

LEVEL 1 Satisfaction: Were trainees satisfied with the quality of their training?

LEVEL 2 Learning: Did trainees learn, or acquire the

knowledge, skills, or attitudes the training was intended to convey?

LEVEL 3 Application: If they learned, did the trainees apply to

their jobs, or at their workplace, the new knowledge, skills, or attitudes?

LEVEL 4 Organisational

Performance: If knowledge, skills, or attitudes were applied, did that make a measurable difference to the performance of the organisation concerned?

Summary of the 4-level Strategic Training Model.

LEVEL 1 Satisfaction: Were trainees satisfied with the quality of their training?

LEVEL 2 Learning: Did trainees learn, or acquire the

knowledge, skills, or attitudes the training was intended to convey?

LEVEL 3 Application: If they learned, did the trainees apply to

their jobs, or at their workplace, the new knowledge, skills, or attitudes?

LEVEL 4 Organisational

Performance: If knowledge, skills, or attitudes were applied, did that make a measurable difference to the performance of the organisation concerned?

12

Training of Officials: Summary Findings

Were provincial and district officials satisfied and did they show relevant learning following the Khulisa training programme? High degree of satisfaction with the training process (level one).

Evidence of learning – both theoretical and practical (level two). Most participants had good attitude but when attitude was

negative, evidence that the attitude improved (level two). Completed forms and the participation rates indicate levels

three and four partially achieved

Not all provinces are equal in their performance but some embraced the monitoring system enthusiastically.

13

Implementation of the Monitoring & Support System

How well has the monitoring and support

system been implemented?

14

Productivity: Officials Monitoring

Average sites monitored per official 6.4: LP officials most productive (10.7 visits)NC least productive One Mpumalanga official with 64 sites!

Low average of 6 visits over 8 months, raises questions about the support model

15

No. of Sites Monitored

 Possible

Sites

Nr. visited at least once

% Visited once

Nr visited twice or more

% Visited twice or more

EC 841 223 26.5% 10 1.2%

FS 290 174 60.0% 43 14.8%

GP 558 390 69.9% 88 15.8%

KZN 1035 229 22.1% 15 1.4%

LP 711 358 50.4% 14 2.0%

MP 341 186 54.5% 21 6.2%

NC 172 127 73.8% 8 4.7%

NW 170 63 37.1% 2 1.2%

WC 439 223 50.8% 13 3.0%

Total 4557 1973 43.3% 214 4.7%

16

System Implementation: Officials’ Comments

Greater sense of structure / focus:“I didn’t know what to do when I get to the ECD site but ever

since I was trained on how to monitor and quality control… I don’t have problems.”

Opportunities: “I have learned that there is a team working together to

improve the standard of ECD in our province.”Improved quality of site visits:

“Our school visits are much more focussed.”Improvement at the sites:

“I can see the differences at the sites after the visits and they have been improved.”

17

System Implementation: Officials’ Comments

Positive attitude:“My attitude towards site practitioners has totally changed.

The amount of effort they put in managing those sites and the eagerness to learn from mistakes made [impressed

me].”“I have a different approach now when giving feedback to the

educators that I am working with.”Impact on their workload:

“It has made some changes, although I feel I’m not doing justice to this monitoring process due to the overload of

my work.”

18

System Implementation: Officials’ Comments

Work is easier:“It makes my work as specialist easier. I know exactly what I will do at a site and what I would

like to achieve.”Sense of purpose with this system:

“It changed the way I work with sites because now there is a country-wide tool being used which assists with monitoring and which provides direction with regards to what is monitored.”

19

Provincial Conditional Grant Implementation

How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant?

20

Provincial Implementation: Summary Findings

How effectively have the provinces delivered the conditional grant? Target: 4500 sites, 4396 supported Of those 2/3rds received subsidy on time

2600 received the kits, but 48% could show them Since Khulisa was not given the training database, no report on the RPL or training process

21

Level of Implementation at Conditional Grant Sites

How has the conditional grant affected the sites?

22

Implementation Level: Introduction

Sites categorisation “red”/ requires extensive assistance, “yellow” requires support, “green” requires less support and “purple” / outstanding

Progress data based on the 214 sites that were visited twice.

23

Implementation Level: Finance & Admin

Finance & Admin

50%47%

52%

61%

49% 47%

28%

57%

46%

57%

39%42%

38%

31%

43%40%

50%

39%

43%

37%

9% 9% 9% 7% 7%12%

18%

3%

10%

5%

0%2%1%1%1%1%1%2%1% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC

Strong (Purple) Average (Green) Needs support(Yellow) Needs intensive support (Red)

24

Implementation Level: Finance & Admin

Potential support strategies:Provide templates, exemplars and guidance; Identify practical management tips;Motivate use of good financial and

administrative records;Champion ECD issues; andPromote Social Development registration.

25

Implementation Level: Healthy Development

Healthy Development

27%20%

40%33%

28%

10%

27%

39%

17%

39%

51%

48%

52%

58%

52%

49%

52%

51%

52%

42%

20%

28%

8% 9%

20%

36%

19%

9%

27%

17%

2%3%1%5%

1%0%0%4%2% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC

Strong (Purple) Average (Green) Needs support(Yellow) Needs intensive support (Red)

26

Implementation Level: Healthy Development

Possible support:Identify and communicate areas

where support is required with practitioner;

Encourage sites to register with Social Development;

Supply resources; andProvide Knowledge / Skill Support.

27

Implementation Level: HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS

16%8% 10%

28%

10% 11%

2%

42%

10%17%

10%

12%

18%

14%

8% 4%

17%

6%

13%

9%

12%

10%

12%

6%8%

5%

7%

5%

9%

4%

89%

65% 68%62%

46%

76% 77%

34%

79%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC

Strong (Purple) Average (Green) Needs support(Yellow) Needs intensive support (Red)

28

Implementation Level: HIV/AIDS

Possible support strategies:Raise HIV/AIDS awareness; Provide information regarding how to

deal with HIV/AIDS at site level (blood injuries, orphaned children, nutrition);

Supply first aid training and resources (including cheaper substitutes);

Work with other stakeholders to build referral and support networks.

29

Implementation Level: Active Learning

Management of Active Learning

47%42%

22%

56%61%

39%

30%

72%

44%

56%

33%

35%

38%

33%28%

41%

41%

23%

30%

24%

15%19%

25%

10% 9%

16%25%

6%

21%15%

5%5%0%

5%3%1%

15%

4%4% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC

Strong (Purple) Average (Green) Needs support(Yellow) Needs intensive support (Red)

30

Implementation Level: Active Learning

Support strategiesBuild awareness and active learning skills;Hold Training tenderer accountable through

monitoring system;Focus on follow up and reinforce training

(partly through accessing Training database); Minimise contradictive messages (Training

tenderer vs. province);Promote “communities of practice”.

31

Implementation Level: Training

Training

9%2%

10%15%

7% 5%

16% 13%

3%8%

43%

40%

55% 46%

43%

29%

45% 54%

41%

40%

23%

30%

21%21%

17%

29%

27%11%

13%

22%

29%

43%

22%

37%33%

17%14%

28%25%

12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ALL EC FS GP KZN LP MP NC NW WC

Strong (Purple) Average (Green) Needs support(Yellow) Needs intensive support (Red)

32

Implementation Level: Overall

Performance Category Nr. of sites % Total

Strong (Purple) 475 24%

Average (Green) 1143 58%

Needs support (Yellow) 338 17%

Needs intensive support (Red) 17 1%

Total sites 1973 100%

33

Implementation Level: Progress

Province Improved Same WeakenedNr. of

Sites

EC 60% 0% 40% 10

FS 70% 0% 30% 43

GP 68% 1% 31% 88

KZN 47% 0% 53% 15

LP 57% 0% 43% 14

MP 43% 0% 57% 21

NC 50% 0% 50% 8

NW 50% 0% 50% 2

WC 69% 0% 31% 13

Total 63% 0% 37% 214

*Note: Only 214 sites were visited more than once

34

Broader ECD issues

What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues:

Social development registrationGrade R Learner Admission Policy

Social Grant DisbursementPrimary School Nutrition Programme

SACE Registration

35

Soc. Dev. Registration

    Not RegisteredConditionally

Registered Fully Registered

EC % 25.9% 13.7% 60.4%

FS % 3.8% 92.4% 3.8%

GP % 27.6% 31.0% 41.4%

KZN % 32.4% 8.8% 58.8%

LP % 59.7% 13.2% 27.1%

MP % 42.3% 37.1% 20.6%

NC % 37.0% 21.9% 41.1%

NW % 25.9% 46.6% 27.6%

WC % 25.0% 53.7% 21.3%

Total % 34.2% 31.8% 34.0%

*Note: Only sites that were indicated to be community based are included in this table. About 43 of the sites did not provide any information on this aspect.

36

Child Support Grants

  Unaware Aware Total

EC 31% 69% 100%

FS 27% 73% 100%

GP 50% 50% 100%

KZN 29% 71% 100%

LP 18% 82% 100%

MP 19% 81% 100%

NC 16% 84% 100%

NW 15% 85% 100%

WC 67% 33% 100%

Total 33% 67% 100%

* Note: 112 Sites did not provide information on this aspect.

ProvinceReceiving

GrantsNot Receiving

Grants

EC 14.8% 85.2%

FS 27.3% 72.7%

GP 26.5% 73.5%

KZN 12.9% 87.1%

LP 19.5% 80.5%

MP 48.3% 51.7%

NC 22.7% 77.3%

NW 27.1% 72.9%

WC 22.7% 77.3%

Total 24.3% 75.7%*Note: This table only contains responses for practitioners

that indicated that they were aware about social grants disbursement.

37

Broader ECD Issues: Summary Findings

What are the findings related to the following broad ECD issues:

Social Development Registration: Required for community-based sites, a third of the sites monitored are not even conditionally registered

Grade R Learner Admission Policy: In 13.3% Grade R classes, practitioners admitted to over-age learners

38

Broader ECD Issues: Summary Findings

Social Grant Disbursement: Practitioners’ pastoral role is increasingly important due to HIV/AIDS, but 1/3 do not know if their learners are receiving their social grants Primary School Nutrition Programme: According to practitioners, only 59% of school-based sites are actually receiving PSNP food/supportSACE Registration: Only 13% Grade R teachers are registered